| ▲ | pressbuttons an hour ago |
| Why do you think this is LLM-generated? Reads perfectly fine to me. |
|
| ▲ | no_multitudes an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| The sentence construction, choice of vocabulary, and continually breathless tone are all clear indicators this was written by an llm and barely edited. I threw part of it into pangram to get a second opinion: https://www.pangram.com/history/8d6a7de3-86ac-4ce0-86c5-4f93... |
| |
| ▲ | jedberg 17 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Have you tried putting known human writing into pangram? I have. I've gotten 100% AI with multiple samples of my own human writing. It has also given me 50% on things I know were 100% AI written (from my prompts). Pangram and everything like it is useless. The results are random on known samples. | | |
| ▲ | MostlyStable 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Pangram specifically (as opposed to most other detectors) publish internal audits, and seem to welcome external audits [0]. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, just that in my opinion they have earned a higher bar of criticism than random one off anecdote. [0] https://xcancel.com/JohnHolbein1/status/2059648132250570975#... | | |
| ▲ | jedberg 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's a fair criticism, I certainly didn't run a full benchmark. Just a few of my own pieces of writing. I also did it a few months ago, maybe it's gotten better since. |
| |
| ▲ | no_multitudes 12 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's interesting! I have tried to get false positives from pangram and failed, so I trusted it a bit more than any of the others, although I generally just rely on my own intuition. I am curious what your false positive samples looked like, if you're willing to share. (I'm less interested in false negatives; I have successfully produced those myself.) | | |
| ▲ | jedberg 4 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'll try to pull them up for you, I'd have to go back and find them on my computer. |
|
| |
| ▲ | JRandomHacker42 31 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > There was no exploit. No vulnerability disclosure. No CVE for me to write. was a dead giveaway in my mind when I read it. |
|
|
| ▲ | titularcomment 8 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dots and periods. Everywhere. So many. There is no paragraph — its sentences all the way down. That made me think if the project is entirely vibecoded as well. Even for a project manager without network access, hosting flawed software on your LAN can only get you so far. |
|
| ▲ | poly2it 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > What stuck with me wasn’t the scale, although 14,000 people getting a phishing email from a domain I own is bad. It was how mundane it was. > There was no exploit. No vulnerability disclosure. No CVE for me to write. The attacker filled out my signup form 942 times, made 942 workspaces, sent 942 batches of about a hundred invitations each, and stopped. They used my tool exactly as designed. The design was just bad enough that the tool was good for phishing. |
| |
